Copyright Term (Your Input Requested)

The 70 years thing only serves Disney and such corporations. I don't actually care that much what happens to my copyrights after I'm gone but I do want to have control while I live. And I suppose I'd want my heirs to 'look after' my work for a couple decades or so—whether they make any money off it is less important!

 

I cant say I have deep thoughts on this topic, so I would be open to good argumentation. My sense is there is both value to getting to enjoy the benefits of a creation, and benefit in having it become part of the public domain. I think I would favor a policy that went along the lines of a period of protection from the public domain, with the ability to renew, and the gradual lessoning of private protections over a period of time. Such that, Disney could protect Mickey Mouse for some years, but would not have to same protection at 70 years, that they had at 20 years. If I was a policy wonk, I am sure I could write all that in legalese. I'll leave it to others though.

I am inclined to think, that along the lines of garage bands that found that letting fans keep pirated copies actually helped their marketing, something similar may be likely with copyrighted material.

For me, the biggest concern is actually over work I would like to publish but have not yet, and someone else beating me to the punch. I would hope, that once published, I could demonstrate that I was the original source, and continue to hold the property while I expanded it. If I had no plans to though, I don't mind others doing it instead...it would be nice if they asked, I guess

 

I don’t see a “public good” in taking the rights away from a writer or family members, it’s not a medicine, heh heh. It would serve corporate greed as much or more if on dying and (somehow) my work got famous, they could make a movie and make big money and my kids get screwed. If you want rights to someone’s creative efforts, PAY for them. If you want to enjoy someone’s creative efforts, pay what they ask (they have the option to give it away free) Without creative influence Middle Earth would’ve been pillaged worse than it has been. Now, 200 years down the road? Eh. But if your work is big enough, I think the family should be able to continue advancing their rights. And if ever my brain gets transferred into a cyborg, I want my book rights, damn it.

That said, my books have been pirated... Whispers of Ghosts even had a site claiming to have the book before I finished it, which I thought was a helluva feat. This is small timer stuff. I don’t really care even if it stings. But, it could be taken too far.

Now, you get into medical patents, there are reasons for having long patents... for instance, many patents are placed a decade before the product is allowed to hit the market by the FDA, and the clock is ticking on that patent and they’re spending, not making money. It’s not like a patent for, say, a toe-stop on a roller skate which one can get and produce wham bam! Drugs and medical devices take an insane amount of time to hit the market and insane amounts of money and risk to get them there. Without long patents, either drug/device prices would be forced up to more quickly recoup losses, or companies would quit researching, neither of which is good for the public.

 

Rights given, rights taken away or expired. I think the lifetime and 70 is reasonable. I see the right of the creator as a natural right Being upheld And protected by statute and regulations. What I want right now is a “right” to a declicker in Adobe Auditions that gets rid of a mouth click that’s driving me nuts! LMAO. No idea what my mouth was doing.

 

I have little of value to add....

Which is kinda the point, heh. How can a work of fiction ever be a "public good?"

Seriously. Copyright laws are essential for protecting individuals' ability to profit from the work. I get that. Whether the writer, or a corporation, or whatever individual or family member inherits those rights, the laws exist to protect the ability to profit from that work. How is there a "public good" other than this ability to profit from the work? Will the entire public gain royalties, heh? Or are we merely opening up the potential for individual gain; i.e., Joe Public can now create works derived from that original work? Is that the public good: Like opening up a resource, just not oil, land, water?

 

For me, the question is how any single, given piece of art is absolutely required to be in the public domain for this public good.

People can have art—painting novels, plays, etc.—they can pursue those activities, without having rights to using Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, for instance, in their own artistic pursuit. Removing HP from public domain doesn't reduce whatever good people gain from art. It's not in public domain right now; are we as a society in any way hurt by that? A discussion of times involved, terms or length, in copyright would have to address this question. Remove work X from public domain for 5 years. Is society hurt? Now, 25 years. Same question. One author dies at age 23, and another at age 85. Is society more hurt by the author who lived longer? Heh. [Here, me deriving from Animal Farm to create a new adage, fitting for that story: "The artist that dies young serves society best."]

I feel I may sound like I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. But I have a natural, long-held aversion to some of the squishier, socially-constructed "values" that do not make much sense in and of themselves. Art, in the whole as the abstract, may be good for society. I think it is. But particular works that do not serve any practical benefit? Even some of these might enlighten people or bring people joy, and I think these are good effects upon society. But must those works be in the public domain for this to occur? That, I'm not sure.

Edit/Addendum: Incidentally, I've wondered if the opposite might be true. Given the current penchant for deriving works or retelling the same tales over and over and over—a la Hollywood; but look anywhere—and I wonder if withholding works from public domain might actually be better for society on the whole...

 

I think life + 70 years is reasonable, but life + 50 would also be okay. If an author dies young leaving a young family behind, at least they'll be covered, assuming the books are selling.

I know that companies try to extend copyright, and Disney has done this (as far as I know). I don't think extending in this way benefits society.

 

I think the rather extreme expansion of the length of copyright makes you lose track of the fact that it is intended to be temporary.
From the US Constitution:
"...to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for a limited Time to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Notice here that it is purely a practical solution. A limited, financial gain would inspire more people to come up with useful stuff. It is not ownership in the sense of property right.

 

I seem to remember news items (a year or two back? Maybe longer. I can't keep track of dates anymore) about certain corporations at least attempting to circumvent copyright expirations by claiming trademarks on certain names from fictional works. Disney with 'Peter Pan' I believe was one example. Haven't really followed up on any of that so I'm not sure whether it's still going on (but would guess it is).